October 29, 2007

Worst Arguments

Two weeks ago I posted Left Brain Right Brain closes – how the actions of John Best (who sometimes posts as Fore Sam) had forced Kevin Leitch to close his blog to protect his family. Predictably, John Best appeared in the comments to promote his pseudoscientific view that autism is caused by Thimerosal in vaccines. Several other commenters (details below) took Best to task and essentially ripped his silly arguments apart for all to see. Yes, my regular commenters really are smarter than the average bear.

Not everyone reads long comments threads, but I can honestly recommend reading this one to see how weak Best’s’ arguments are. You can compare Best’s mere assertions with the actual contrary evidence and citations provided by the other commenters. It’s worth a read just to appreciate the intellectual ass kicking the other commenters gave Best. Some of it’s pretty funny too. And remember, this repertoire Best has of fallacious reasoning, assertion and bullying represent the very best (no pun intended) arguments that he has been able to think of in all his years promoting these beliefs. You’ll need to set aside a couple of hours to read all of the 180 comments - more if you’re going to read all the citations (not the ones from Best because he doesn’t provide any), but it will be entertaining.

That said, I know not everyone has that amount of spare time, so I’m going to sum up Best’s arguments and the rebuttals.

Best Arguments for Thimerosal

Pun intended that time. His is an argument in two parts, namely:

Autism first appeared in 1943 (or maybe 1931 – a little uncertain over the exact date) – which corresponds to the date Thimerosal was first used in vaccines. The only explanation for this is that thimerosal causes autism.

Based on his personal observation only, Best thinks his son’s autism (or is it his ADD – a little unsure here too), and that of several other kids, was cured by chelation.

Autism first appeared in 1943

How about we use a graph from the last million years? It will show no autism until 1943 with a slow rise for about 40 years and an increasing rise as the number of vaccines with thimerosal increased.

Even if we had data from the last million years (obviously we don’t), it wouldn’t show autism until 1943 because that’s when Leo Kanner determined that autism was a separate syndrome, not reported before. Kanner notes autism had most likely previously been previously reported as schizophrenia. Best provided no data, but Tom Foss found Kanner’s actual paper that states:

These characteristics form a unique “syndrome,” not heretofore reported, which seems to be rare enough, yet is probably more frequent than is indicated by the paucity of observed cases. It is quite possible that some such children have been viewed as feebleminded or schizophrenic. In fact, several children of our group were introduced to us as idiots or imbeciles, one still resides in a state school for the feebleminded, and two had been previously considered as schizophrenic.

It seems fairly clear that Kanner means autistics were around before but had been misdiagnosed as feebleminded or schizophrenic. That is, autism existed before 1943 (or 1931 – take your pick), but it had been called something else. Kanner is just the first person to recognize that autism is something different. Best insists Kanner is saying autistics didn’t even exist before he (Kanner) diagnosed these initial children. Reading what Kanner wrote, I don’t see how any reasonable person could possibly come to the conclusion that Best comes to. In any case, the idea is absurd.

Best’s entire case stands or falls on his interpretation of Kanner’s words, the truth of Best’s interpretation, and Best’s assertion that “Autism is never misdiagnosed”. And he means it never was misdiagnosed – even before Kanner. That’s clearly an absurd assertion on its own, but even more so after Joseph provided a link to Dr. J. Landon Down and "Developmental" Disorders – referring to an 1887 paper that reported on patients with a “developmental” disorder that we would now almost certainly refer to as autism. Best just ignores this inconvenient piece of data.

Best then leads with what he considers is a killer argument, the crudely phrased:

Are you trying to tell me autism existed before 1943? If your ridiculous assertion is true, you should be able to show me 77 year olds at the rate of 1 in 150 with autism. If you can do that, I'll blow you.

Of course, it’s highly unlikely that 77 year old autistics, who value their privacy, would be lining up to present themselves now for classification at the order of John Best. Even so, Interverbal managed to provide:

California Department of Disability Services

Quarterly Report 7/1/1992

Age Cohort: 62-99

4 people meeting DSM-III-R autism criteria (stricter than the current standard).

1992 - 62 = 1930.

If they are alive today, then they are your 77 year old autistics, at the youngest.

Best just hand waved away this inconvenient piece of data.

The most charitable view is that Best hasn’t provided any even remotely extraordinary evidence for his extraordinary claim. The less charitable and more realistic view, is that his argument has been totally busted. And without it, what reason does he have to suppose autism is caused by Thimerosal? Oh yes, it’s:

Chelation

Best’s reasoning for this is:

My son's improvement, my son with ADD being 100% cured, friends and acquaintances who have cured their children and reports from DAN and others.

But he provides no double blind studies that show chelation to be better than placebo. There is a reason we use double blind studies – it is because we know that humans are good at fooling themselves. This is especially true with autism which involves delay in many areas of development. But delay doesn’t necessarily mean no progression. Autistic kids often progress without intervention, and certainly without chelation. Without a double blind study, you have no way of knowing if chelation is a factor in the progression or not.

Best also fails to explain why, if his son is “100% cured”, he still needs chelation. This is something you would expect if chelation was not curing the child. It’s a result that is inconsistent with chelation being the cure.

Without a randomized double-blind study we cannot possibly know if chelation is helping Best’s child or any other. And since that was the other leg of Best’s proof that Thimerosal causes autism, his “argument” such as it was, is completely destroyed. Best’s continued aggressive and anti-science responses such as “Studies are a waste of time to me” demonstrate his inability to even think coherently on this subject. It also means he doesn’t even realize how much he’s just been beaten, and how much his foolishness has been laid bare for the world to see.

Questions Best Can’t Answer

When debating someone, questions often arise from the claims the person makes. For example, if someone says “chelation cures autism”, a reasonable question is “where is the study that shows that?” Questions not answered, or answered dishonestly, can be very revealing about the strength of the person’s position and his or her intellectual honesty. Jimmy Blue and Tom Foss came up with several relevant questions that Best ignored. If you want to know how honest Best is, or how strong his case is, consider these questions that Best still can’t or won’t answer:

What reason do you have not to believe that all the Thimerosal has been removed from vaccines?

How does Thimerosal cause mercury poisoning?

If removing Thimerosal from childhood vaccines had no effect on reducing autism (because it's still coming from the parents' flu shots) then how do you know it was ever caused by childhood vaccines?

A lot fewer people get flu shots than get their children vaccines; still fewer get it while they're pregnant. How long does it stay in the mother's system?

What evidence do you have that chelation cures autistics?

So, were autistic kids born with "scrambled brains" before, due to the flu shots? If so, again, how could you blame childhood vaccines? If not, why has the flu vaccine started causing autism earlier than the mercury crowd used to claim?

How could Kanner (or you) say that autism had NEVER existed before 1943 if he (or you) did not have access to the medical records of every human being who had ever lived?

What evidence is there that autism is the result of brain cells damaged by mercury?

Why can't Best give us a detailed rebuttal of the sources found in the last week, when he has been researching this for years?

In what sense does he mean his son is cured of autism if he still needs treatment for it?

How does Generation Rescue respond to the accusation that its research is not peer reviewed?

Why does Generation Rescue still claim that the work of certain scientists supports their arguments when many of those scientists have specifically stated it does not and asked to be disassociated from GR's work?

How does Best explain the contradiction of claiming the CDC cannot be trusted whilst quoting autism prevalence rates provided by CDC research?

Why does Best think life is nothing to lose for autistic children?

How does Best explain his statement that autism is never misdiagnosed when there is clear evidence that it has been in the past and still is now?

Note in the comments below, whether or not Best attempts to answer any of these questions, and form your own views.

Acknowledgements

This post was written with the arguments developed and put forward by commenters on this blog.

Most of the heavy lifting of the detailed paragraph by paragraph rebuttals to Best’s points, was written by Jimmy_Blue and Tom Foss. From experience I know how much time this takes, and they should be congratulated. They also gave me several good laughs (“My dogs think they are smarter than you”). Tactical support was supplied by Bronze Dog and Techskeptic, pointing out fallacies and other problems with Best’s position. A couple of pieces of really interesting information came from Joseph, who has clearly been writing about autism longer than most of us. And of course, Interverbal found the 77 year old autistics that Best still insists don’t exist. Thanks to you all. It was quite a lesson in taking apart fallacious arguments.

Bestisms

I want to end with a few choice Best quotes. It’s not quite as good as this list of John Best quotes, but they are amusing none the less.

In response to requests for citations to back up his claims:

I don't use citations. I just rely on my memory. When you learn to do that, you will be a lot better off.

On the inventiveness of Eli Lilly:

Autism was invented in 1931 by Eli Lilly.

Argument by wild west wanted poster:

…just find me the 77 year olds, dead or alive.

On consistency in evaluating sources:

The FDA and CDC are not reputable sources for anything.

And then goes on to quote the autism prevalence of 1 in 150, which he gets from (guess where? No prizes) , the CDC.

Until one of you morons can decipher a racing form and select 6 out of 9 races while I only pick 5, you will not be able to outdo me at any intellectual pursuit. For, handicapping horse races is the single most difficult problem solving exercise one could ever encounter.

Note: the single most difficult problem solving exercise one could ever encounter. There really is no answer to that. Best’s Nobel Prize must surely be a mere formality.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"Autism first appeared in 1943 (or maybe 1931 – a little uncertain over the exact date) – which corresponds to the date Thimerosal was first used in vaccines"

So for a kid to get the diagnosis it needs an age of around 3 years old, so it should have been born in '40, not getting the shots, or born in '43 and getting the diagnosis in '46. What is causing the autism in '43?

Just as no studies or DBCS's are needed to accept the fact that cobra venom helps injured horse's to win races, the fact that non-verbal kids begin to talk, make eye contact and pay attention to the world around them after undergoing chelation is enough proof for reasonable people to conclude that removing the mercury solved the problem.

It's more important to cure the children than to bother with studies.

Four 77 year olds who are allegedly autistic do not equate to 1 in 150. You forgot to note that nobody answered my questions about how old they were when they were diagnosed or if they were tested for fragile X.

Every day I see my son who is no longer a "vegetable" is all the proof I need. Your arguments and inane questions can't change that fact. If you'd like to meet him and see some videos of what he used to be like, that could be arranged. Just don't ask to stop by while the races are going on.

But how do you know you are curing a child without any studies? Could it be that your child is getter better despite the treatment? For instance could a more optimistic attitude from yourself following the treatment be helping your son and mask ill-effects from the treatment itself? A study comparing treatments against placeboes might help people find out and save lives.

If you get into such a state that you think that attacking a seven year old girl is a good thing, is it possible that you've lost some perspective? I'm sure you can feel proud about the love and attention you give to your children. It's clear you care deeply about them. Yet would you really be proud of your parenting if you raised your children to impersonate small girls themselves?

the fact that non-verbal kids begin to talk, make eye contact and pay attention to the world around them after undergoing chelation is enough proof for reasonable people to conclude that removing the mercury solved the problem.

So in your view, John, the fact that children have been known to talk, make eye contact and pay attention after wearking the Thought Screen Helmet is enough proof that autism is nothing but a form of alien thought control? I guess there's no time to waste. Go over to Michael Menkin's site and start building some hats.

"Jim Adams, Ph.D. shared the results of the DMSA - Autism Treatment Study he conducted at Arizona State University. He reported DMSA was found to clearly increase the excretion of some metals and resulted in some improvements in behavior. Watch for Dr. Adams' presentation on the ARI website in November." from the ARI newsletter. Too bad he didn't use ALA, huh Joe, he might've got better results.

I asked your guy with the helmet if it would help me pick horses but he never answered. It sounds like a sham to me.

In fact, in the global impressions scale, improvements were basically the same comparing 7 rounds vs. 1 round + 6 placebos. However, worse outcomes were reported for 8% of those on 7 rounds vs. 0% of those who had one. One of those "healing crises" I guess?

The increase in, or appearance in many of these disorders such as Autism are nearly all related to the introduction of foreign toxins into our lifestyles by technology and medicine.

In the case of ADD, it is clearly more sociological than anything. I think it's possible ADD doesn't really exist (as well was other medicated 'disorders' that fall within a spectrum of commonality) but is more of a creation of modern medicine.

We are conversely able to live a longer and sometimes better life due to technology, so there is a trade-off. I marginalize medicine because doctors exist only as practitioners of government approved technological processes.

I feel as though all the bickering over these ideas on this site is a bit small minded in nature. Science has a long way to go to live up to it's own claims. I love computers, but modern medicine can't fix my toenail, let alone my neck problem. Yet many seem to think we have it all figured out.

The scientific system of beliefs is based on circular reasoning. Perhaps things will improve over time, but at the moment I'm not impressed at all. The most 'scientific' among us are the least happy, the least content. Americans are the some of the most depressed, overweight, violent and distressed people in the world.

Travel a bit. You'll soon begin to see the difference between science and technology, happiness and atheism.

And maybe your minds will be open to something other than what you think you know.

After all if you had everything figured out you wouldn't be arguing about it here would you

Autism are nearly all related to the introduction of foreign toxins into our lifestyles by technology and medicine

What the hell are you talking about? What toxins?

I think it's possible ADD doesn't really exist...but is more of a creation of modern medicine

What the hell are you talking about? All illnesses, mental and physical, don't exist by that definition. Cancer? Result of modern medicine. Schizophrenia?..modern medicine.

I marginalize medicine because doctors exist only as practitioners of government approved technological processes

What the hell are you talking about? The medicine you just thanks science and technology for, is the same medicine that has improve due to a scientific method, one in which treatments are evaluated and compared against placebo. Government doesnt control that process.

Science has a long way to go to live up to it's own claims.

What the hell are you talking about? I don't even know what you are referring to here.

What the hell are you talking about? What do computers have to do with medicine? When did medicine claim to be able to fix all things, all the time? Only woo does that.

The scientific system of beliefs is based on circular reasoning.

What the hell are you talking about? Really what are you talking about?

The most 'scientific' among us are the least happy, the least content.

What the hell are you talking about? I have no idea who you are referring to. You are just making shit up as you go.

Americans are the some of the most depressed, overweight, violent and distressed people in the world.

What the hell are you talking about? Americans arent, for the most part, 'scientific', that is a small minority of them (only 30% of Americans go to college and only a small percentage of those go into the sciences), and you have no way to gauge their happiness. Most Americans are not violent, you self centered bastard. That is like saying all muslims are suicide bombers, its stupid and narrow.

Travel a bit. You'll soon begin to see the difference between science and technology, happiness and atheism.

What the hell are you talking about? I have traveled extensively, you presumptuous twit. Now you are just trying to say things with no substance.

And maybe your minds will be open to something other than what you think you know

The most 'scientific' among us are the least happy, the least content.

And where's the evidence for this claim? You just seem to be pulling it out of your ass, or assuming that because you yourself are "unscientific" or somesuch and you are happy, that obviously us scientific folk must be unhappy. Or something. Seriously, where the hell are you getting this?

There have, in fact, been studies that show that the happiest, most prosperous nations with the lowest crime rates are often the most secular, atheistic nations.

Americans are the some of the most depressed, overweight, violent and distressed people in the world.

And it's been said before, but something likle 85% of America claims belief in a personal deity, flying in the face of science and reason. About 60% of the population of America believes that the world is only 6000 years old and that the Sky Bully made a woman out of a man's rib and commanded her to be subservient to him. Just because these fat, lazy, unhappy people survive thanks to the fruits of science and technology doesn't mean they know anything about it.

Travel a bit. You'll soon begin to see the difference between science and technology, happiness and atheism.

Science = a self-correcting method used to generate accurate knowledge about the world around us and the body of knowledge collected using that method.

Technology = Practical application of that knowledge to create new, innovative objects, including machines of all kinds as well as medical devices and cures.

And I haven't left the lower 48 since 1997. Go figure.

And that happiness vs. atheism thing? Who has ever conflated the two? Who have you seen that defines "happiness" as "absence of a god-belief?" Saying "You'll see the difference between happiness and atheism" is like saying "You'll see the difference between kittens and bicycles." It's readily apparent. Happiness is the state of being happy and atheism is the lack of a god-belief. Why the hell would we have any trouble telling them apart?

Hmm. Looking through all these Bestisms, I'm detecting a pattern:
he displays social ineptness and doesn't seem to know when he's giving offence;
he clearly lacks any emotional empathy and cannot put himself in another's place;
he has obesessions and fixed ideas that are hard to shift;
he takes things literally and has to have jokes explained to him (re the 'white dwarf' thing);
if his claims to be successful at horse-race gambling are true, then he has a talent for maths, numbers and pattern-recognition.
Well, now, all that seems familiar...
Welcome to the wonderful world of Aspergers Syndrome, John!
(PS - You're still a ****head)

Sophia,
Learning how to win at the horses has nothing to do with statistics or pattern recognition. It has to do with a desire to avoid working. While learning how to interpret statistics is important, it is painstaking, boring record keeping that makes patterns emerge over long periods of time. Those patterns are only marginally important in the grand scheme of things since each race is an equation to be solved by itself.
I am intentionally offensive when dealing with liars and nitwits. My disdain for these people should not be misinterpreted as social ineptitude. I'm not trying to make friends here.

John once tried to join a mailing list for autistic adults. I don't have the reference with me, but he said something like "I think I might be autistic" or some such. He didn't realize the list moderators were very much aware of his IP address.

Learning how to win at the horses ...has to do with a desire to avoid working.

Hmm. Methinks that "desire to avoid working" is what would be called a Necessary, but not Sufficient component in successful wagering on horseracing. As in "all successful gamblers have a desire not to work, but not all who are work-averse are sucessful gamblers".

Actually, that you gamble and boast about it makes a certain sense. After you've won a big payday, you feel great, like a genius, and boast about it. If there aren't any big wins, well, you're having a "dry spell" or a "bad run of luck". (assuming you talk about it at all)

Now, let me ask: are you up or down, year-to-date? What is your Rate of Return for the year? How much income did you claim on your taxes from gambling last year, and out of how much total income? Those questions obviously don't matter to you, because you're a genius who picked a great bracket! (Except when you hit a bad streak, but those happen to everyone, right?)

That's the difference between science and self-deception. Don't talk about your latest big win, or your biggest win ever. Show me performance over time, show me the ROI. Don't give me anecdotes, give me information backed with data. Don't bother to tell me how much you won last week or last month, tell me what your net gain or loss on gambling was for the last year, and tell me how much total wagering you engaged in.

Saying "I'm a genius gambler" requires proof. Winning $1,000 this week isn't proof, because we don't know how much you bet to win that, and we don't know if you've been winning or losing prior to that. If you win $1,000 this week, but you've been losing $50 a week for the last six months, you're not a genius. Heck, even if you win $1,000 this week after losing $50 a week for the last four and a half months, you're still not a genius, because you're only up $100. Even if you end the year ahead $250 on a hypothetical $50 weekly bet, that's less than a 10% ROI before taxes.

This really does seem to reflect the difference between the scientific, skeptical worldview and the "Woo" worldview:
You see a $1,000 win on a $50 bet and claim genius.
We see a gambler, and wonder whether he's ahead or behind for the year, and by how much.
You have a good afternoon with your child, and claim he's 100% cured.
We see a parent wanting to believe the best for their child, unaware that they're not an objective observer.

Broncobob,
I never claimed my autistic son was cured. One of the functionally illiterate skeptics here came up with that misinformation. I guess that comes from trying to obfuscate the truth about everything to do with autism, he must have got carried away.
The fact of the matter is, my son is much better off than he was. He still can't talk but his receptive language is normal. It used to be zero a few years ago. It's a very slow process simply to gain enough improvement for a severely autistic child to pay attention to anything. He has been able to learn things slowly since chelation started. He won't learn at a normal rate until, and if, we can eliminate all the obstacles he faces from mercury poisoning. The process continues.
I'm not about to share dollar amounts concerning my investments. My ROI is much better than I could ever dream of achieving in the stock market.

I'm not about to share dollar amounts concerning my investments. My ROI is much better than I could ever dream of achieving in the stock market.

So you claim to be great at handicapping horses, but you can't give me a simple thing like your year-to-date ROI? You won't talk dollar amounts, but can you even give your percentage return year-to-date? Will you even say if its positive or negative?

Saying you're doing better than you "could ever dream of doing" is a meaningless comparison. Are you doing better than the risk-free rate of a 20-year T-bill? Better than an indexed fund?

You see, if you weren't so scornful of things like Statistics, you'd know about sample size and Gambler's Fallacy and the Return to the Mean.

Why does any of this matter? Because it shows you're unwilling to engage in serious, meaningful, quantatative thinking. Saying "I have an ROI better than I could ever do on the stock market" is an unqualified, abstract answer. Saying "Last year, I beat the 20-year T-bill by half a percent after taxes" is meaningful. Saying "I won't discuss numbers, but I'm ahead for the year" isn't terribly useful, but it beats "I won't discuss numbers".

No dollar amounts, just tell me: what was your ROI last year for handicapping horses? If you're a serious gambler, I know you keep records for tax purposes. If you're brilliant at equations, figuring the ROI after taxes should be a breeze.

It's easy to find anecdotes that bolster your opinion. ("I picked 5 out of 9 on this last racing form!") But anecdotes don't prove anything but that the isolated incident in question occurred. It's the trend over time, it's the ability to reproduce an outcome under controlled conditions, that's proof. Saying you've picked 5 out of 9 on a form just tells me you did that once. Now, if you can show a net positive return over time, that proves you might actually have some skill in the matter. (it doesn't prove that you have any skill in unrelated matters, but it at least shows you can bet on horse races)

Until you can understand why your ROI matters more than a single claim of picking 5 of 9, you really don't understand how the scientific method works to remove the influence of bias and random chance.

This is fun.
"Foreign toxins" - as opposed to what? Your bog standard home-grown ones?
The idea that atheism makes you miserable - must tell that to my friends in the Middle East. The alternative I suppose is epitomized by those happy-go-lucky, never-tell-a-lie, exponents of tolerance, humanity and humility - those loud-mouthed ignorant gobshites the American Christian evangelists.
Americans are scientific so that's why they're fat (someone's been at the falling down water again).
Great stuff.

Asking a guy who boasts at his skill at handicapping horses if he has broken even for the year isn't.

I put your questions in the same vein as me asking you specifics about how your wife is in bed.

If I boasted about how fantastic a lover my wife was, and how no one could criticize my opinions until they could prove themselves to be a sexual equal, then such questions should be considered neither rude nor unexpected

You can't claim that handicapping horses is an incredible mental exercise, and that until someone can equal or better your skill that you won't listen to them, and then absurdly claim "privacy concerns" when someone asks you to prove your claim.

Are you ahead or behind, year-to-date? What is your ROI on handicapping horses? I'm not asking what your tax bracket is, or how much your net income was for the prior year. You're claiming to be great at gambling, I'm asking for the simplest, easiest measure of success: do you end up ahead or behind? You opened the subject for discussion when you boasted about horseracing; you don't get to unring that bell, and claiming "privacy concerns" only after you're questioned about it does not help your credibility.

Oh, and I have not engaged in name-calling or insulting. I don't call you "John Worst"; please extend to me the same minor courtesy by getting my name right.

This answered your question.
No, it didn't, because at no point have you ever ennumerated what your dreams of stock market achievement are. If your wildest dreams of investing in the stock market are "Dear lord, I hope I don't lose my shirt this time!", then that's quite different from expecting to beat the 20-year gain on T-bills. I don't know what your dreams of achievement are, so I certainly don't know what exceeding that looks like.

I'll make this as easy as possible:

Year-to-date, do your total winnings exceed your total wagers: yes or no?

When your wife has sex with 3 guys at once, do you participate or just do the filming?

I never made claims about my (alleged) wife, nor used said claims as basis for my intellectual acumen. I've never mentioned my family, friends, profession, or any other personal details as part of my arguments.

You have made claims about your gambling skill, and used said claim as a basis for dismissing the arguments of others, which makes follow-up questions perfectly reasonable and appropriate.

Is this the part of the thread where you stick your fingers in your ears and repeat 'la-la-la, I can't hear you!'
Or have we reached the stage where you desperately try to change the subject away from providing any evidence or proof for your claims?

I never claimed my autistic son was cured. One of the functionally illiterate skeptics here came up with that misinformation.

Yes that's right, if you write confusing sentences and assume that people have knowledge of you that they don't then it is the reader who is at fault. However, when you read completely legible and clear sentences and still get it wrong, it is the authors fault. And why did it take so long to correct us on this? Hell, Joseph corrected me before you did.

Jimmy,
One would assume that a reasonable adult would not need to be told that he misinterpreted something more than once. I should have made allowances for your lack of intelligence and gone to the bother of giving you the same information twice. Of course, there is no DBCS to confirm that my son is not yet cured so I could be wrong.

That's one of the reasons many of us have come to the conclusion that you're not a reasonable adult, Bestie.

And, of course, you also end up misrepresenting the purpose of us bringing up DBCSs in this case. It's about establishing causation. If a kid improves, we can't jump to the conclusion that the favored treatment was the cause. There's a lot of wiggle room for other causes to slip in. Like the fact that children, more or less living embodiments of change and growth, can often improve on their own. That includes autistic children.

---

Additional, irrelevant note, just because: I just got my flu vaccine. It contained thimerosal as a preservative. Said so on the package when I asked the nurse to check.

At least you've now confirmed in your own words what we already knew. What would you call an adult who has to be told 5 times that he misinterpreted something and still doesn't get it?

I should have made allowances for your lack of intelligence and gone to the bother of giving you the same information twice.

Would you like to go back to the old thread and count how many times Kanner's actual words were quoted to you? And do you accept them yet? So, what would that say about your intelligence?

Of course, there is no DBCS to confirm that my son is not yet cured so I could be wrong.

I don't doubt that you are.

Of course, some other questions do arise from this:

How were your sons diagnosed and by whom?

Do you consider ADHD to be an autism spectrum disorder?

Do you still give chelation therapy to your ADHD 'cured' son?

Why is it taking so long to cure your autistic son? How much mercury was in his system? How much has been chelated? How much is left?

Are you aware that the Nationanl Institute of Mental Health does not say anything about thimerasol or mercury being connected to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, or was your son chelated for something else?

Nearly 25 questions Bestie and still no answers. Answer the questions or shut up.

Why is it taking so long to cure your autistic son? How much mercury was in his system? How much has been chelated? How much is left?

His sons were never tested for mercury, nor do I think John knows how much mercury or minerals/nutrients are being excreted with each round. More than the 180 micrograms that were in the vaccination schedule at its peak? No doubt. He simply assumes that autism was invented by Eli Lilly in 1931 and that chelating indefinitely is a good thing. In the literature you will find that usually, in cases of real mercury poisoning, chelation lasts a month, perhaps 9 months tops.

Jimmy,
Do I have to explain everything to you twice? White dwarfs are people. If you want to discuss stars, you need to state that.

You can quote Kanner's words as much as you like. It won't change the fact that you can't understand what he said.

The NIMH is not an authority on ADHD. I am an authority on it since I have cured it; they have not. ADD and ADHD are caused by thimerosal.

I can cure your stupidity too, Jim. I'll give you private instruction for a fee if you would like to learn the facts about thimerosal and autism. Every time you ask an inane question, I'll zap you with one of the devices they use at the Judge Rottenberg Center until you learn to think before you speak.

White dwarfs are people. If you want to discuss stars, you need to state that.

Google disagrees with you. I did a search for "white dwarf", looking for any references to a person (and not a star), and gave up after the first 20 pages (primarily references to white dwarf stars and role-playing). I even found a white dwarf hamster, but still no people.

Actually, Google is a pretty good indicator of how people use language, since it's searching pages written by native English speakers. Linguists know Google is a useful tool for understanding how people use language.

So, once again, you talk out of your ass rather than admit you don't know something. This seems to be a pattern.

Ok, this has gone far enough. For your own and your children's safety you need to get help Best. Real, professional, help. You are in that category of stupidity where you become a danger to yourself and others.

Do I have to explain everything to you twice? White dwarfs are people. If you want to discuss stars, you need to state that.

Except that apparently everyone BUT you knew that white dwarf meant a type of star in this example. Everyone BUT you refers to dwarfs as simply dwarfs (or similar meaning term), not by their race or skin colour. Everyone BUT you knows that when someone says 'white dwarf' they are almost certainly referring to a type of star. Everyone BUT you knows that if you use the term white dwarf in the context of calling someone dense, you mean a star. That's because not everyone shares the prejudices you obviously have towards the disabled.

But you still need this explaining to you, and still insist that you got it right even though you got it embarrasingly wrong for all to see.

Your oft demonstrated arrogance leads you to believe that if you thought it meant a short pink skinned person then that is what it means.

When in fact, you just got it wrong and can't admit it.

You can quote Kanner's words as much as you like. It won't change the fact that you can't understand what he said.

The words have been posted, you have yet to show in any way how I got it wrong, I have demonstrated how you clearly did. What the hell is wrong with you? Get help. You clearly do not understand what he says since Kanner's OWN words directly contradict your interpretation of them.

This is not the first time this has been pointed out to you, this is at least the fourth or fifth. Reasonable adult yadda yadda.

The NIMH is not an authority on ADHD. I am an authority on it since I have cured it; they have not.

You have got to be kidding me. Are you for real? I guess that means that any research scientists working on HIV or AIDs should not be considered 'authorities' on either of them, right? No authorities on cancer, right? Since astronomers haven't actually been to other planets, they can't be considered authorities on them? Since zoologists haven't been Duck-Billed Platypuses they can't be considered authorities on them?

You have no proof you have cured anything, and have demonstrated that you have a far from comprehensive understanding of anything, nevermind autism. You arrogant bastard.

ADD and ADHD are caused by thimerosal.

I rest my case. ADD and ADHD are considered by 'authorities' to be the same thing. But don't take my word for it:

At various times, ADHD has been called attention-deficit disorder (ADD), hyperactivity, and even minimal brain dysfunction. But ADHD is the preferred term because it more accurately describes all aspects of the condition.

Before you try, the content of that page comes from the Mayo Clinic, not Wikipedia or Microsoft.

Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (add-adhd, ADHD, AD/HD) is being diagnosed with increasing frequency in both children and adults.

...

The fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DMS-IV), published by the American Psychiatric Association, classifies three types of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder or ADHD (officially called Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder or AD/HD).

I can cure your stupidity too, Jim.

I'm not usually one for quoting the Bible but:

Physician, heal thyself.

I'll give you private instruction for a fee if you would like to learn the facts about thimerosal and autism.

I'd rather spend my money on something more worthwhile than lessons from you on any topic, thanks. Like astrology for instance. Or a trip to Atlantis. Or a perpetual motion machine. Or a palm reading. Or the Emperor's new clothes.

Every time you ask an inane question, I'll zap you with one of the devices they use at the Judge Rottenberg Center until you learn to think before you speak.

Spoken like a true totalitarian. (If you need the big word explaining let us know.)

Anyway, here we hit on the real reason Best thinks he knows the truth. The truth is whatever he can bully people into believing. Picking on the wrong people here Best. We don't like bullies. After all everyone knows bullies are at heart, cowards.

Answer the questions, including the new ones, or shut up. Your repeated refusal to answer them is really more informative than anything you could say. You don't answer them because you can't.

Google can't think. All it can do is a horrible job of searching for something.

You really are a douchebag.

The point of bringing up Google is that its algorithm will (simply put) find the most common occurences of the term you use for the search (something you apparently can't do very well anyway, research not being your strongpoint). If the most common occurence of a term is in reference to either the star type or a roleplaying magazine from Games Workshop then it means, surprise surprise, that you were once again wrong.

that's right, the process itself weeds out the things that we know it isn't.

Beastie,

For all the reasons upon reasons that have been listed (are we up to 18 good reasons?), we know with a high degree of certainty that thimerisol is not the cause of autism (or ADD or ADHD or your case of apparent syphilitic brain).

When we can rule out a hypothesis, instead of whining and spending so much time and money on nonsense, as you yourself have done, we move on and try to find the actual reason (which by the way, probably is not one single thing, but a combination of things, like a genetic disposition accompanied with a environmental factor). What is a waste of time and money is to sit there and try to pretend we know the answer when the data is glaringly against us.

What you are doing is essentially the same thing as bloodletting or leeching. These were 'cures' at the time because people got some kakamamie idea in their head and applied a treatment for it without actually testing it in a double blind fashion to prove that it works, just like you are doing to your own kid. Then they convinced others of some nonsense theory as to why it should work rather than showing that is does work. Once again, just like you are doing.

you are wasting time, yours and the people you try to 'convince'
you are wasting money, your and the people you are trying to 'convince'
you are part of the reason people are not getting vaccinations
you are part of the reason there are measles outbreaks
you are part of the reason that autism research is slower than it can be

I've been lurking, reading lots of blogs lately... Mr. Best may very well be as... limited in capacity of brain function as he appears to be.

But folks (us rational-minded people) - blind faith is incurable with logic and reason. If the history of religion can teach us anything, it is that truth.

Somewhere, sometime, Mr. Best read an article on vaccinations and mercury. He did a little research (probably at a crappy holistic bookstore), found that it was mentioned more than a few times. He then read that chelating may help. Due to the high amount of stress that having a normal child entails, not to mention the stress of having one with autism, he was willing to try anything. The gamut of ... chelating(?) took how long? a year? many months? many years? Sure, you reduced the amount of heavy metals in your child's body. No one can doubt that that's a bad thing (i certainly could do with less lead in my body).

here's where things get sticky. Ever heard of synchronicity? If you are unaware of statistics, things that have no actual correlation can appear to. The easily recalled example of "i was thinking of john and right then the phone rang and it was john" - which is confounded by the simple question "how many times have you thought of john and the phone remained silent, or it rang and it was susan?"

I'm not saying that chelating had no effect on your child's health. I'm saying that there's no evidence that has been conclusive that implies any correlation between chelating and curing autism, or ADHD (otherwise i would have gone on the regimen myself, as i have the disorder).

I'm not saying that having faith in something that appears to have worked for you is bad. If i pray for a beautiful girlfriend every night for two years, I might have my prayers answered. But if they are answered, is it god helping me out, or is it me helping me out (or chloroform, for that matter)? If you want to believe that god is helping you out, fine. If you want to believe that removing heavy metals and other crap from a body automatically reverses SEROTONIN DEFICITS IN THE FRONTAL LOBE somehow... that's fine as well.

Believing in crazy stuff is the backbone of the human brain. It's how we get books, movies, everything. it's not wrong, or morally reprehensible, or any of that.

Mr. Best, I hope you understand that i am not attacking you. I hope you understand that these people you are arguing with are not going to change their minds no matter what evidence you throw at them. They won't even change their minds if you call them names.

The NIMH is not an authority on ADHD. I am an authority on it since I have cured it; they have not. ADD and ADHD are caused by thimerosal.

Since I have ADHD, do I have more authority than you by your definition, especially since I've learned to work with my disorder to actually be MORE productive? If so, my professional opinion is that you're dead wrong.

We'll change our minds with good evidence. The problem is that Bestie won't provide the critical information we need. He won't even give us his trail of "research" so that we can examine it ourselves. He's even tight-lipped about why we should accept his anecdote as evidence, when it's appearing no better than any of the other crazy stuff we debunk.

I reject John Best's nonsense for the same reasons I reject astrology, homeopathy, psychics, Intelligent Design, alien abductions, and so on and so forth.

If I told you knuckleheads the single most important statistic in handicapping horses, you would say I was out of my mind. The tickets I cash prove that I know what I am talking about.

My sons' improvement with chelation also proves that I am right. I don't have to prove it to you. I only have to prove it to myself as a responsible father. I share this information with other parents who wish to help their kids. Since you people obviously don't give a damn about helping children, I really don't give a damn what you think.

I have a quick question... Since ADD is the lack of serotonin being burned in the frontal lobes, if you used chelation to somehow fix that, wouldn't continuing the chelation (which is stimulating serotonin in the frontal lobes, by Best's definition) then cause the person to become bipolar? Which is too MUCH serotonin burning in the frontal lobes?

i'd much rather have ADD than bipolar disorder, personally. Nothing against you bipolar folks, of course.

If I told you knuckleheads the single most important statistic in handicapping horses, you would say I was out of my mind.

No. I wouldn't give a crap.

My sons' improvement with chelation also proves that I am right.

Except you can't even prove this to us.

I don't have to prove it to you.

If you are making a claim and encouraging others to do as you have, then yes you do. Or you are a dishonest coward.

Since you people obviously don't give a damn about helping children

And you know this how? Presumably you have evidence for this ridiculous assertion? For instance, evidence that I haven't in fact helped raise almost $12,000 for the National Deaf Childrens Society in the UK? That I wasn't involved in a voluntary organisation for teenagers? That's just me, nevermind everyone else who posts here.

See Best, when you make shit up, people find out what you really are and find it easy to make you look like a fool.

I really don't give a damn what you think.

Oh we can see that. I mean, why else would you keep coming back here to take an intellectual pounding? Obviously taking all this time arguing here is because you don't give a damn what we think.

The cause of the "autism epidemic"? What is the evidence of this epidemic? What we know is that the number of children classified as autistic in special education has increased. Prometheus made a good case the other day that this is due to diagnostic substitution. He even had some cool new graphs that are difficult to argue with.

There's probably an increase outside of special education as well, but an explanation for that is not that hard to imagine.

One has to wonder why Generation Rescue / Putting Children First, headed up by JB Handley, supports Best's actions and viewpoints. I would think that an unapologetic bigot and anti-government, anti-vax, anti-science viewpoints would be a detriment to an organization, but I guess that Handley is down with it. I wonder if Oprah, Montel, Jenny McJuggs, Bono and the rest of the woo-woo snake oil crowd are also bigots?

The simple fact is that Best is a dog without training. Handley and the other science-free money brokers use this dog to make themselves look better.

Hamster Oil,
Did you learn that using name calling was a good source of argument in skeptic school? If I was a bigot, I would not have any problem with you calling me that. Since I'm not a bigot but do oppose idiots like you, I take the time to point out that you have to resort to these lies to try to demonize an opponent who the lot of you can never defeat in any sort of debate.

Bronze Dog,
If you click on my name, it will transport you to my blog. I forgot what post he posted his comment on though.
BTW, name calling and ad hominem are different logical fallacies. You'll have to reread your Logic 101 textbook.

Why would you answer questions when they are posted on your blog, but not when they are posted here? And why not now cut and paste your answers here? And why the change of heart just because they were posted on your blog?

Anyway, I will post your answers to the questions I asked here and examine them. The ones that Tom and others asked I'll leave for them to examine, though I'm sure there are some we've all asked so sorry if I step on anyone else's toes. Unless they are yours Bestie.

Incidentally, don't bother trying to edit your answers after we point out what is wrong with them, I took a copy of the webpage at 3:44pm 6-October.

Question 7

How could Kanner (or you) say that autism had NEVER existed before 1943 if he (or you) did not have access to the medical records of every human being who had ever lived?

Best's answer:Kanner would have heard about it if autism had ever existed. So would have the rest of the world. Asking if he had access to every medical record in the history of mankind is stupid, even for you morons.

You tried this before and made yourself look stupid, why do it again? How would Kanner have heard if autism existed before if he was the first to diagnose it as a seperate syndrome? How would he have decided it had not existed at all before 1943 if he did not research every medical record for everyone who had ever lived prior to that? Kanner explicitly states that before he made the diagnosis autism was misdiagnosed as other illnesses. Kanner's own words directly contradict your answer. As for this: Asking if he had access to every medical record in the history of mankind is stupid, even for you morons.

You once again miss the point. What a surprise. I know he could not have had access to all the medical records in the world for everyone who ever lived, which is why I know that Kanner could not and did not say what you claim he does. The question was a rhetorical device designed to make your position look ridiculous and make you look foolish. Your answer proves that it worked.

Best's answer: It caused Mad Hatter's Disease, Pinks Diseaase and other problems. Injecting it into newborn babies is a lot different than getting a little bit in a tuna sandwich that is mostly excreted via digestion.

I didn't ask why it didn't cause mercury poisoning, I asked why it didn't cause autism. Incidentally, did you even know of Mad Hatter's Disease before I told you about it? Does that mean I invented it and it didn't exist until last week? Of course, Mad Hatters Disease was not caused by eating a tuna sandwich. It was caused by exposure to massive amounts of mercury. Is your position now that no pregnant women were ever exposed to mercury throughout the entire history of mankind?

This answer does not in fact even answer the question posed, which was :

Why did exposure to mercury not cause autism before 1943/1931/1929?

Your answer was simply "It did cause mercury poisoning." Which is interesting because you have previously said:

Answer the correct question first Best, then in a way that at least is consistent with the rest of your arguments.

Question 9

How does chelation cure autism?

Best's answer:Chelation cures autism by removing mercury so that methylation functions normally. Unfortunately, mercury kills lots of brain cells so it alone can't cure everyone. HBOT seems to be helping in that regard.

DNA methylation or protein methylation? Are you suggesting that autism is caused by gene silencing? What does methylation have to do with the seeming lack of Pukinje Cells in autistics compared to the numbers in non-autistics? Is autism then the result of killed brain cells, is that what you are saying? How is HBOT helping?

How is it helping in stroke victims and what is your proof that it is? Note before you shoot your mouth off that I am not saying that it doesn't help stroke victims, I want to know how and what your evidence is.

More specifically, does HBOT cause Pukinje cells to re-grow?

Question 13

What evidence is there that autism is the result of brain cells damaged by mercury?

Best's answer:That's not what autism is. Autism is an inability to pay attention to anything, caused by lack of methyl B-12.

Is that your professional diagnosis? Because it sounds nothing like any of the descriptions I have read of what autism is. And I have read what Kanner says. And he was the first person to diagnose autism, remember? His description sounds nothing like yours. Is this how you diagnosed your son with autism, he didn't pay attention? Because I'll tell you for free, that means every kid is autistic.

But I digress, since now you have dropped yourself right in the shit.

You said that mercury kills brain cells. You said that removing mercury can help cure autism. You said that sometimes removing the mercury is not enough to cure autism and sometimes you need HBOT to regrow brain cells and cure autism. Then you say that autism is not caused by missing or damaged brain cells. If autism is not damaged brain cells caused by mercury, what is it? If it is not damaged brain cells then why do you need HBOT?

If it is caused by lack of methyl B-12, then why do you need chelation and HBOT? How does a lack of methyl B-12 cause autism? How does mercury cause a lack of B-12? Do you mean Cyanocobalamin (commonly called vitamin B12) when you refer to methyl B-12? An internet search certainly seems to suggest that.

Question 14

Why can't Best give us a detailed rebuttal of the sources I have found in the last week, when he has been researching this for years?

Best's answer (I promise you're gonna love this one): The sources are scams paid for by the drug industry. People who are helping children have proven them false. You're ignoring the big picture to focus on minutiae.

Translation:
"I can't disprove them at all so it is all Big Pharma/The Man/the Illuminati/The New World Order."

You absolutely did not look at my sources did you? I quoted the WHO (you know, World Health Organisation), The National Autistic Society (a charity), Kanner (you know, the guy who first diagnosed autism.Which would make that diagnosis the work of the big drug companies, right?), CBC (a Canadian broadcaster), Associated Content (an independent media company), the CDC (hey it seemed good enough for you remember), Wikipedia (that well known corporate shill), the BBC (you know, British Broadcasting Corporation), wrongdiagnosis.com, swedish.org, personalitydisorders.suite101.com, CNN, Tony Attwood, intox.org, The London Times, health.live.com, The National Institute for Mental Health, add-adhd.org.

These were all paid for by the drug companies were they? And you can prove this?

Question 15

In what sense does he mean his son is cured of autism if he still needs treatment for it?

Best's answer:Question formulated by an illiterate. I never said my autistic son was cured, omly that he has improved significantly.

Just in case no-one can spot why this is so funny, you're looking for the spelling mistake.

Bestie, if you are going to call someone illiterate, you should at least try and get your spelling correct. Now, I recognise that this was a typo. But if you were as half as smart as you think you are, you would have dropped this when I mentioned that the passage we are referring to is poorly written and that you have notoriously misunderstood just about everything we've said to you.

So, the passage being referred to is this:My son's improvement, my son with ADD being 100% cured, friends and acquaintances who have cured their children and reports from DAN and others.

Having recognised that I misunderstood your mangling of the English language I have since asked some further questions:

How were your sons diagnosed and by whom?

Do you consider ADHD to be an autism spectrum disorder?

Do you still give chelation therapy to your ADHD 'cured' son?

Why is it taking so long to cure your autistic son? How much mercury was in his system? How much has been chelated? How much is left?

I await your answers.

Question 16

How does Generation Rescue respond to the accusation that it's research is not peer reviewed?

Best's answer:It is peer reviewed. It simply has not been published in places that are sponsored by drug company advertising. It has also been reviewed by people who cure autism and our opinions are the only ones that matter. Opinions from scumbags who are trying to deny the truth are irrelevant.

In science peer review does not mean "Yeah, my mates looked at it." So what you are telling us is that all the most reputable scientific and medical journals are paid for by the drug companies? And presumably you can prove this? And then along with the conspiracy theories we have the famed Best arrogance.

This is a non-answer.

Question 17

Why does Generation Rescue still claim that the work of certain scientists supports their arguments when many of those scientists have specifically stated it does not and asked to be disassociated from GR's work?

Best's answer:I understand that a few scientists did not want their names used in an advertisement. GR isn't putting forth any arguments. They are simply advertising the truth that our drug company controlled media is prevented from disseminating.

And those scientists have since asked to be disassociated from GR's conclusions and claims. That's quite a big thing you know. When a scientist says that their research doesn't show what you are claiming it does, it is a bit of a give away. But your position is that GR makes no arguments? No claims? Again, you have proof of your Big Pharma theory, right?

Question 18

How does Best explain the contradiction of claiming the CDC cannot be trusted whilst quoting autism prevalence rates provided by CDC research?

Best's answer: Lies, damn lies and statistics. Ask a teacher who has been around for 40 years how many kids with autism they saw 40 years ago.

This does not answer the question. You directly contradicted yourself. Admit it.

Question 19

Why does Best think life is nothing to lose for autistic children?

Best's answer:Given a choice of life in prison or death, what would you choose? Without a cure, life in prison is what faces my son when I can no longer control him. Since I believe in Heaven, unlike you simpletons, I expect that is a better option for him.

You really do think dying is better than autism don't you? I'd choose life everytime. Believing in Heaven just proves you believe stuff without evidence Best. It does NOT help your answer become true. Anyway, why not just get rid of him now if that is what you believe? Why put him through all the suffering? You really are a scary nutter who has no business being a parent. I am seriously considering reporting you to child services or the police.

Question 20

How does Best explain his statement that autism is never misdiagnosed when there is clear evidence that it has been in the past and still is now?

Best's answer:It is impossible to misdiagnose severe autism. Some jerks who diagnosed themselves with Asperger's as adults are trying to muddy the waters. Phoneys like Amanda Baggs, who was normal before she scrambled her brain with LSD have also tried to obfuscate the truth. No truly autistic person has ever been misdiagnosed.

And yet Kanner disagreed with you. As did all the sources I quoted. And the sources that some others quoted.

Autistic people have been and still are misdiagnosed and there is ample evidence of this. It just suits you to bury your head in the sand.

Incidentally, I did notice the shift in your argument from "Autism is never misdiagnosed" to "severe autism". Nice shifting of the goal posts. Did you think you would get away with it?

"Is that your professional diagnosis? Because it sounds nothing like any of the descriptions I have read of what autism is. And I have read what Kanner says. And he was the first person to diagnose autism, remember? His description sounds nothing like yours. Is this how you diagnosed your son with autism, he didn't pay attention? Because I'll tell you for free, that means every kid is autistic.

But I digress, since now you have dropped yourself right in the shit.

You said that mercury kills brain cells. You said that removing mercury can help cure autism. You said that sometimes removing the mercury is not enough to cure autism and sometimes you need HBOT to regrow brain cells and cure autism. Then you say that autism is not caused by missing or damaged brain cells. If autism is not damaged brain cells caused by mercury, what is it? If it is not damaged brain cells then why do you need HBOT?

If it is caused by lack of methyl B-12, then why do you need chelation and HBOT? How does a lack of methyl B-12 cause autism? How does mercury cause a lack of B-12? Do you mean Cyanocobalamin (commonly called vitamin B12) when you refer to methyl B-12? An internet search certainly seems to suggest that."

Jimmy,
Thanks for showing us that you don't know anything about autism. I have chosen to respond to question #13 since that's all I have time for today.
Neither Kanner nor anyone else knew that autism was an inability to pay attention caused by lack of METHYLCOBALAMIN (MB-12) which is different than cyanocobalamin (B-12) until Richard Deth figured it out.
The inability to pay attention to anything is the root cause of all the other mental symptoms associated with autism. If you had ever met an autistic child, this would be incredibly obvious, even to a simpleton like you.
Killed brain cells can lower the IQ's and cause a poor child to have to endure life with a brain that functions similar to yours. However, retardation is nothing like autism. Retarded people can be taught to stay on the sidewalk instead of bolting into the paths of oncoming cars. Can you do that, Jim? My son couldn't before I started removing the mercury but, now he can. Retarded people can talk. My son can't but he is not retarded. He is smart enough to devise a little scam to distract people long enough so that he can swipe food off their plates. I don't think most retarded people would be capable of this. Can you do that, Jim?
Is it starting to sink in how being able to pay attention is the start of recovery? If you can't pay attention to anything, your level of intelligence can never be realized. Once an autistic child has the mercury removed and can make his own MB-12 (METHYLCOBALAMIN, just for you, Jim) he can begin to function, very similar to how a baby begins to learn. In that same vein, it probably will surprise you to learn that my son stopped babbling about the same time I began to suspect something had scrambled his brain. Then, some time after chelation was started, he began babbling again, just like he had 8 years earlier when he was a baby. I don't expect you to understand this Jim but, that is how babies learn to talk. It's similar to you babbling inanities about autism. You don't quite understand it but you have your foot in the door. Now, if you keep reading what I have to teach you, it might be possible that you can become literate on the subject. So, keep babbling all you want and showing off your ignorance because that's how some people learn. I'm patient so I don't mind allowing you to learn from your mistakes.

...METHYLCOBALAMIN (MB-12) which is different than cyanocobalamin (B-12)
...

The inability to pay attention to anything is the root cause of all the other mental symptoms associated with autism.

Pay attention, this is going to be important.

If you had ever met an autistic child, this would be incredibly obvious, even to a simpleton like you.

Funny you should say that, what with one of my friends having an autistic son.

He is smart enough to devise a little scam to distract people long enough so that he can swipe food off their plates. I don't think most retarded people would be capable of this. Can you do that, Jim?

I don't have to. And perhaps if you looked after your son properly neither would he.

Once an autistic child has the mercury removed and can make his own MB-12 (METHYLCOBALAMIN, just for you, Jim) he can begin to function, very similar to how a baby begins to learn.

Are we still paying attention, because this too will be important?

I don't expect you to understand this Jim but, that is how babies learn to talk.

That is interesting. Because when I did my course on Child Language Acquisition it didn't say "Babies learn language by babbling." Just other things like reinforcement, correction, repetition, replication, trial and error. But don't take my word for it, read up on works by people like Skinner, Chomsky and the whole host of people who have actually done research on this, rather than make shit up.

You don't quite understand it but you have your foot in the door.

Unlike you, who isn't even in the same dimension as the door.

Now, if you keep reading what I have to teach you, it might be possible that you can become literate on the subject.

In a broad sense it refers to a group of cobalt-containing compounds known as cobalamins - cyanocobalamin (an artifact formed as a result of the use of cyanide in the purification procedures), hydroxocobalamin and the two coenzyme forms of B12, methylcobalamin (MeB12) and 5-deoxyadenosylcobalamin (adenosylcobalamin - AdoB12).

In a more specific way, the term B12 is used to refer to only one of these forms, cyanocobalamin, which is the principal B12 form used for foods and in nutritional supplements.

...

MTR, a methyl transfer enzyme, which uses the MeB12 and reaction type 2 to catalyze the conversion of the amino acid Hcy into Met (for more see MTR's reaction mechanism). This functionality is lost in vitamin B12 deficiency, and can be measured clinically as an increased homocysteine level in vitro. Increased homocysteine can also be diagnostic of a folic acid deficiency. There is some controversy over whether it is the reduced availability of methionine, or the reduced availability of THF (produced in the conversion of homocysteine to methionine) that is responsible for the reduced availability of 5,10-methylene-THF. 5,10-methylene-THF is involved in the synthesis of thymine, and hence reduced availability of 5,10-methylene-THF results in problems with DNA synthesis, and ultimately in ineffective production of blood cells.

You still following this Bestie?

Cyanocobalamin is converted to its active forms, first hydroxocobalamin and then methylcobalamin and adenosylcobalamin in the liver.

B12 deficiency can potentially cause severe and irreversible damage, especially to the brain and nervous system.

The first deficiency symptom that was discovered was anemia characterized by enlarged blood corpuscles, so-called megaloblastic anemia.

...

Far more serious is the damage to the nervous system that may occur due to deficiency.

Early and even fairly pronounced deficiency does not always cause distinct or specific symptoms. Common early symptoms are tiredness or a decreased mental work capacity, decreased concentration and decreased memory, irritability and depression.

Did you get that Bestie?

Shall we do that again in slow motion?

Best: autism was an inability to pay attention caused by lack of METHYLCOBALAMIN (MB-12)

vitamin B-12 deficiency (remember the science now, methylcobalamin is an active form of vitamin B-12): Common early symptoms are tiredness or a decreased mental work capacity, decreased concentration and decreased memory, irritability and depression.

Anyone see a pattern?

But the symptoms don't stop there:

Sleep disturbances may occur, because B12 may be involved in the regulation of the sleep wake cycle by the pineal gland (through melatonin)[1].

Neurological signs of B12 deficiency, which can occur without anemia, include sensory disturbances due to damage to peripheral nerves caused by demyelination and irreversible nerve cell death. Symptoms include numbness, tingling of the extremities, disturbed coordination and, if not treated in time, an ataxic gait, a syndrome known as subacute combined degeneration of spinal cord.

B12 deficiency can also cause symptoms of mania and psychosis.[2][3] (Note: these references were chosen because they are freely available on the internet; other restricted references are also availalable.)

Recent studies have devalued a possible connection between B12 deficiency and Alzheimer's dementia, and such a correlation is unlikely as of June 2007.[4]

Studies showing a relationship between clinical depression levels and deficient B12 blood levels in elderly people are documented in the clinical literature.[5] and 2002 [6]

Vitamin B12 deficiency can also cause nerve damage (neuropathy) even when no anemia develops, particularly in people older than 60. The legs are affected earlier and more often than the arms. Tingling is felt in the feet and hands, and sensation in the legs, feet, and hands is lost. Vibration and position senses are also lost. Mild to moderate muscle weakness develops, and reflexes may be lost. Walking becomes difficult. Some people become confused, irritable, and mildly depressed. Advanced vitamin B12 deficiency may lead to delirium, paranoia, and impaired mental function, including dementia.

Jim,
These guys who wrote a book about language must not have had kids. All babies babble, that's how they learn to make different sounds.

Do you have a B-12 deficiency or is your mental incapacity due to other causes? Did your research teach you anything about the role MB-12 plays in autism?

Kids with an MB-12 deficiency do not necessarily have a B-12 deficiency. I think you'll have to do more research. It seems you have decided to accept information concerneing B-12 and assumed it is the same as MB-12.

Beastie,
I am still amazed how every time you present a new "fact" you get it wrong. and you contradict yourself.

(why it still amazes me, i have no idea, I've just never seen anyone wrong on so many things at once, you remind me of the person that Carl Sagan describes in the beginning of his book "demon haunted world")

he began babbling again.... that is how babies learn to talk.

And then:

All babies babble, that's how they learn to make different sounds

do you play sports? How can you possibly score anything when you insist on moving goal posts every time you have the ball?

Yes, babbling is an important part of learning to make sounds, but it is only one of many things needed for learning to talk

God damn, jimmy! i'm convinced you just diagnosed best's son with a vitamin B12 deficiency... any clues as to what can cause this? I know that strict vegans have to take B12 suppliments because our main source of B12 is the flesh of animals (i think beef, specifically, but i don't remember where i heard that). Then again it's anecdotal and i've never done the research, and i take multivitamins to prevent any sort of weird effects of lacking b12 and C and stuff.

I love best's little note that ADD isn't a neurological disorder. or that he wasn't convinced it was. I guess you have to have it to know that it is.

Struggling against a neurological disorder is a pain in the ass. And i'd like to state for the record that i have a very high IQ, and my ADD doesn't affect that at all. Nor has it affected my ability to pass tests in college. Or get a 99 on the ASVAB. You know what it does affect? Working, paying attention in class, listening to really boring people talk - stuff like that.

Oh well. i have a headache (probably because of an iron deficiency) and i am tired. i think i'll close this here.

Techskeptic,
Wow, I can't believe how clever you are!!!
You made a distinction between talking and making different sounds.
Here's a test for you. Sound out B-O-N-E-H-E-A-D. Now sound out I-D-I-O-T. Can you hear the difference? These are different sounds!!! Most words sound DIFFERENT!!! Some words, like to, too amd two sound the same. If someone uses those words, they are making the SAME sound but they have different meanings. Some people can distinguish these things easily. Some people who have been to two too many skeptic conventions could encounter trouble with these simple matters.

Geez, before Jimmy shows up to blast me for having a typo, I better point out that I mistyped an "m" which should have been an "n" in the word "and" between too and two. I hope that typo doesn't nullify my point.

These guys who wrote a book about language must not have had kids. All babies babble, that's how they learn to make different sounds.

Wow, now Best is an expert on child language acquisition as well. A true Renaissance Man.

So you have nothing to say on the years of research the hundreds of experts have done? And you can say for definite that none of them have kids? And having something is a prerequisite for being an expert in it? Where did I say babies don't babble? Where do these experts say that babies don't babble? Oh wait, you couldn't have misunderstood my point, could you?

Best, you said that babbling is how kids learn to talk. Then you changed that to how kids learn to make different sounds, because you at least understood you were totally wrong. Talking is not just making different sounds genius. Although the fact that you think it is explains a lot.

So I guess you aren't an expert after all. There's a surprise.

Do you have a B-12 deficiency or is your mental incapacity due to other causes?

No, but it does seem likely you are giving quack treatments to your son for autism when he in fact appears to have a vitamin B-12 deficiency. Way to go Mr. Autism Expert.

Did your research teach you anything about the role MB-12 plays in autism?

No, because it probably doesn't have one.

Kids with an MB-12 deficiency do not necessarily have a B-12 deficiency. I think you'll have to do more research. It seems you have decided to accept information concerneing B-12 and assumed it is the same as MB-12.

Oh you poor dear, you didn't understand a word of what I posted above did you?

Lets try this again:

Cyanocobalamin is a compound that is metabolized to a vitamin in the B complex commonly known as vitamin B12 (or B12 for short).

...

The name vitamin B12 is used in two different ways.

In a broad sense it refers to a group of cobalt-containing compounds known as cobalamins - cyanocobalamin (an artifact formed as a result of the use of cyanide in the purification procedures), hydroxocobalamin and the two coenzyme forms of B12, methylcobalamin (MeB12) and 5-deoxyadenosylcobalamin (adenosylcobalamin - AdoB12).

In a more specific way, the term B12 is used to refer to only one of these forms, cyanocobalamin, which is the principal B12 form used for foods and in nutritional supplements... Being an unnatural form of B12 it is misleading to equate it with the vitamin especially if it is not a fully effective supplement.

...

Vit B12 cannot be made by plants or animals[2], as the only type of organisms that have the enzymes required for the synthesis of B12 are bacteria and archaea.

...

Vitamin B12 is naturally found only in foods of animal origin including meat (especially liver and shellfish) and milk products.

...

Cyanocobalamin is converted to its active forms, first hydroxocobalamin and then methylcobalamin and adenosylcobalamin in the liver.

Did you get it that time? I tried to leave out as many of the big words as possible.

You misunderstand once again Bestie. B-12 and MeB-12 are not the same thing. MeB-12 is a coenzyme form of B-12. I never said they were the same thing.

Methylcobalamin and 5-deoxyadenosyl cobalamin are the forms of vitamin B12 used in the human body (1). The form of cobalamin used in most supplements, cyanocobalamin, is readily converted to 5-deoxyadenosyl and methylcobalamin in the body.

Once in the bloodstream, transport proteins bind to B12 and deliver it to the cells. Within the cells, enzymes liberate B12 from the protein complex and convert it to its two coenzyme forms, methylcobalamin and adenosylcobalamin.

...

B12 is found almost exclusively in animal foods such as liver, kidney, meat, fish, shellfish, milk products and eggs but the original source of B12 in nature is bacteria, the only creatures able to manufacture this vitamin. In humans and animals, these bacteria produce B12 in the colon; however, little if any is absorbed across the colon wall so we must get our B12 from animal foods.

Any of this sinking in yet?

Now, it's possible I've got this wrong since I'm not a biochemist. In which case, you'll be able to point out exactly how and where rather than just claim I have. Up to it Bestie?

Genewitch:

B12 deficiency has quite a few possible causes, like not getting enough of it from source foods. More significantly the process for metabolizing and absorbing it is very complicated, so any break in the chain can cause deficiency (like a missing enzyme).

Best again:Geez, before Jimmy shows up to blast me for having a typo, I better point out that I mistyped an "m" which should have been an "n" in the word "and" between too and two. I hope that typo doesn't nullify my point.

You do have reading comprehension problems don't you? I said that I recognised a typo. I have never said that spelling mistakes nullify a point. The point was if you want to call someone illiterate, you might want to first have a basic understanding of English grammar yourself.

What nullifies your points are that they are logically inconsistent, contradictory, not backed up by the evidence, made up and just plain wrong.

So anyway, I guess that we can expect you to ignore the rebuttals to your lame ass answers now, right? And for you to ignore all the new questions that have arisen since then? Can we expect you now to try and focus on child langauge acquisition?

Characteristic signs, symptoms, and health problems associated with vitamin B12 deficiency include anemia, fatigue, weakness, constipation, loss of appetite, and weight loss [1,3,12].
Deficiency also can lead to neurological changes such as numbness and tingling in the hands and feet [7,13].
Additional symptoms of vitamin B12 deficiency are difficulty in maintaining balance, depression, confusion, dementia, poor memory, and soreness of the mouth or tongue [14].
Signs of vitamin B12 deficiency in infancy include failure to thrive, movement disorders, delayed development, and megaloblastic anemia [15].

MeB-12 (methylcobalamin) is the active coenzyme form of vitamin b-12. You have clearly shown you have no idea what it is, nevermind what it does.

How exactly then are you in a position to claim it is the important element in autism? Where does that then leave mercury, which previously was your cause of autism? What is your proof that MeB-12 is the important element in autism? Do you mean 'element' in the strict scientific sense?

These questions just keep coming and the previous ones haven't even been answered satisfactorily yet.

Answer the questions or shut up. Answer the rebuttals or shut up.

Do I have to post all of this on your site to get you to attempt answers? Are you going to admit that MeB-12 is a form of vitamin B-12 yet?

Jim,
I'm glad I was able to teach you that cyanocobalamin and methylcobalamin are two different things. It seems the rest went over your head. Since I've already explained it, you'll have to reread it. Maybe a shot of MB-12 would help you pay attention.

I'm glad I was able to teach you that cyanocobalamin and methylcobalamin are two different things.

I must have missed that somewhere, since you still don't get it. Everything I learned this week I learned from doing research by myself. Research being something you have not apparently done on the subject.

Would you like me to post it again?

Here, just for you I'll type it out really slowly so you can keep up.

Cyanocobalamin is a synthetic form of vitamin b-12, but the term is often used in a general sense to refer to vitamin b-12. Hence I asked if that is what you were referring to. Because methylcobalamin is a form of vitamin b-12. But you didn't know this.

Methylcobalamin is an active coenzyme form of vitamin b-12. You didn't know this.

When synthetic cyanocobalamin (and natural b-12) is broken down in the body, one of the things produced is methylcobalamin. You didn't know this.

Methylcobalamin is one of the active forms of vitamin b-12. Cyanocobalamin is a form of vitamin b-12. You may have known this, but I doubt it.

Cyanocobalamin and methylcobalamin are both forms of vitamin b-12. You didn't know this.

Any of this sinking in yet? You didn't have a clue what you were talking about.

It seems the rest went over your head.

Just exactly how delusional are you? You have clearly demonstrated that you had no idea what MeB-12 really was, but keep asserting that I don't. Idiot.

Since I've already explained it, you'll have to reread it.

You obviously have some sort of mental problem. I posted all of the information that showed you had no idea what you were talking about. You still didn't get it and I had to post some more information. You still didn't get it. And now you claim that you taught me and that you explained it? Even though you still don't seem to get it yourself. Even though you haven't explained anything, only claimed things.

Of course, none of this matters. You are trying to divert attention away from the fact that you know jack shit about what you are talking about simply by claiming that we don't.

All your pathetic excuses for answers have been rebutted and you have ignored this.

New questions have arisen and you have ignored them.

You have made a scientific claim that is not supported by evidence, and have demonstrated that you don't understand even the most basic scientific basis of your claim. i.e. you didn't even seem to know what MeB-12 was.

Answer the rebuttals or shut up.

Answer the new questions or shut up.

You're just embarrassing yourself now.

You have taught me one thing though. Some people are really, really, really stupid. People like you.

Jim,
All you had to learn was that mercury prevents methylation. That one simple thing was just too much for your tiny brain. So, you have to resort to name calling and toss out all sorts of irrelevant garbage. If you could learn that one simple fact Jim, You could understand autism.

What are you talking about? Your arguments jump around so much it's difficult to tell sometimes. But let's try and pin you down.

Are you saying that mercury preventing methylation causes the body to be deficient in MeB-12 and this is what causes autism? Is that your final answer?

Should I point out who it was that brought up Methylcobalamin anyway? Because it was you. So are you saying it is irrelevant now? Then why did you bring it up?

Answer the questions or shut up.

Answer the rebuttals or shut up.

In addition, please explain how mercury prevents methylation in the human body, why this causes autism, and what it has to do with MeB-12. Please be specfic about which type of mercury we are talking about as well. Or shut up.

Jim,
All of your junk about B-12 has nothing to do with MB-12. You are sounding as dense as a white dwarf, Jim. MB-12 is the thing that makes it possible to pay attention. Can your peabrain understand that autism is an inability to pay attention?

Still don't understand it then? Poor fella. If you did understand it, you would see why it is relevant.

You are sounding as dense as a white dwarf, Jim.

You really don't get it do you? Thanks for reminding us of just how limited your knowledge is though. White dwarfs would be embarrassing for you, remember?

MB-12 is the thing that makes it possible to pay attention.

And you can't have MeB-12 without....?

Can your peabrain understand that autism is an inability to pay attention?

Can you understand that an inability to pay attention is far from being autism? It is closer to a B-12 deficiency. Or ADHD. Or any number of other things.

Answer the questions or shut up.

Answer the rebuttals or shut up.

Answer the specific questions about what your theory is or shut up.

Here are some more questions for you to ignore though.

Were you aware that MeB-12 actually encourages the methylation of mercury, forming methylmercury? Which is of course the more toxic form of mercury. You were aware of this, right?

Are you aware that Deth's paper says there is a deficiency of methionine because of the restriction of methylation, not MeB-12? You were aware of this, right?

Are you aware that if Deth is right that means that autism can be diagnosed by measuring raised levels of homocystiene? Which is also a symptom of B-12 deficiency.

Are you aware that if you are right it means that autism can be treated with these, for example?

Here is the best bit though:

If you are right, then mercury has always prevented methylation and caused the deficiency of MeB-12. Which means autism was not caused by Thimerasol. Which means that autism existed before 1943/1931/1929. Which means you are wrong on at least one of your theories.

I live with someone similar (but marginally smarter than) Best. Today he told me that ADHD is an excuse and made up; as well as 'being gay' is a made up excuse. I have ADHD... so this angered me. He has PTSD due to being in iraq 3 times, but i don't run around saying his PTSD is made up every time he says he has it.

There's a certain amount of ignorance that is portrayed when there's something that you really don't know anything about, but yet you claim there are studies (for instance somewhere there are studies of how being homosexual is a psychological disorder - which, btw it was in the DSM from the 1960-1970 era... BUT THEY HAVE CHANGED THAT NOW)... and when someone says "uh, you're completely full of batshit!" you say "well i don't care anyhow" or "well you didn't read the studies i read" or even "maybe if you weren't so close minded and easily swayed you'd understand better, eh?"

I've learned to just NOT argue with people on one simple principle:

if they can never admit being wrong, then do not argue with them. This includes "i don't really care anymore" as a reason to stop talking about it. Seriously. If no faults in logic or reasoning can be admitted, then it's not worth trying to talk to that person about anything more than "how's the weather there, dude?"

One thing i've noticed as an effect of this is that you have two sorts of people that generally can't admit being wrong:

Those who think they're smarter than you and will use insults as a way to disprove you (IE best and my roommate);
And those that will get really really freaking angry with you about pointing out their faults and use their knowledge of your personal life to make a very very low blow against you that stings so bad you want to never talk to them again. These latter folks (and any derivative thereof) are the ones you really have to watch out for, because "you're going to hell" is one of the things they'll say - if they are religious pennies.

So to kinda finally get around to the point, Best, i understand that you can't admit being wrong - that you can't even admit not doing the proper research. But that doesn't mean that you are therefore allowed because of your personal opinion to attack someone's wife (or lack thereof), their children (or lack thereof), their general intelligence (or lack thereof): because best, you're just repeating yourself and backpedaling. It works if you're in a position of power (well we didn't find WMDs in iraq but who cares cause saddam was an asshole anyhow) but it does not work for someone who only has words to support themselves and not an army. and you don't have an army, best.

Genewitch,
There is an army of cured kids who prove I'm right. The 90+% of kids who improved with MB-12 prove Jimmy Blue is wrong.
Just as cashed tickets prove when I'm right about horse races, cured kids are the best proof of all. An army of parents have those kids who prove that none of you have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
Since any moron can clearly see the truth in what I've said here, I can only conclude that those who disagree with it are either liars or just plain stupid.
As I've said before, I don't hold stupidity against anyone that has an autistic child. I'll be happy to help them cure their kid.

Until you can demonstrate how you know those kids would not have progressed without the therapy, your “army of cured kids” can not possibly show that the therapy “cured” them. Period.

Double blind tests would demonstrate if your hypothesis is true or not, but you don’t have any DBTs, nor any other valid method for validating your claim. So while it may be true that “any moron can clearly see the truth in what [you’ve] said”, the non-morons among us will note the scientific implausibility of your claims, and realize that your little anecdotes are not even close to extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary and absurd claims.

No no no, techskeptic. He's an evangelist for the cause of "army of parents with chelatedly cured children(APCCC)" That's what he cares about.

For the record, i'm willing to bet i have better luck gambling than best does, and i'll go toe to toe with $100 in vegas to prove it any time he wants to go. Winner takes all or $100 of the loser's money, whichever is more? Open invitation, Mr. Best!

Genewitch,
I had the first 4 winners at Hollywood Park today. You can go to www.drf.com and see what I made on the Pick 4. It made the win bets and the exactas I had look like nothing. It also made me forget about the 4th race exacta, trifecta and win bet I had at Aqueduct. The other tickets I cashed today really aren't worth mentioning.
Suckers play table games and slot machines in Vegas. I used to go there when I was young. Suckers also believe the government. Have a nice night.

So no answers for what I posted Bestie? Just more attempts to pretend shit and change the subject.

What a surprise.

You were wrong on what Deth said about MeB-12. Try re-reading his paper.

MeB-12 probably has nothing to do with autism. However, the symptoms of vitamin B-12 deficiency look startlingly similar to autism in some regards. See if you can figure it out.

Answer the questions or shut up.

Answer the rebuttals or shut up.

Answer the specific questions about your theory or shut up.

If you want to read Deth's paper on mercury and methionine synthase try here. I make no claims of the validity of his research, I just thought you should see how wrong Bestie is. He doesn't even know what the research he quotes says.

Caution Bestie, there are a lot of big words.

Methionine synthase is the problem according to Deth, not MeB-12 deficiency.

I'm a long time reader of this column and have never felt the need to comment before. But everyone seems to have missed one point about best's atitude to DBC's.

"Screw your DBCS's. I don't give a rat's ass about them."

In the very next sentence he states,

"All I give a damn about is helping the kids."

Has it never occurred to him that if DBCS's were carried out and his theory was proved correct the whole of mainstream science would accept it and use it? Therefore helping an awful lot more of 'The Kids'.

People can read back over everything you have said, you do realise that don't you?

You haven't answered any questions satisfactorily; you've managed to get research you used to support your position wrong; you've shown yourself completely ignorant of science; you've mangled the English language and accused others of doing so; you believe in god and think that makes you smarter than those who don't; you think betting on horses is the highest intellectual pursuit known to man; you don't think using sources or research is worthwhile (then try and use both); you quote statistics from sources you then say are unreliable when others use them from the same source; you don't think things exist until someone discovers them; you're a conspiracy nutcase; you insult people and then say that others who do just don't have something worthwhile to say; you won't accept facts painfully obvious to everyone else even when shown the evidence for them; you thought a reference to dense white dwarfs meant stupid short pink people; you think autism can be cured by taking vitamin B-12 supplements. But you say I am the idiot?

Clearly you are either mentally ill and need help or you have a wafer thin grasp of reality. Or both.

Answer the new questions or shut up. No, you haven't tried.

Address the rebuttals to your answers of the previous 20+ or shut up. No, you haven't tried.

Answer the specific questions about the nature of your theory or shut up. No, you haven't tried

Don't make me post them on your blog. Once again Bestie, your failure to answer is really all we need people to see.